We don’t have a parliamentary system where a party can kick out an elected member for not supporting the party’s agenda and replace them with someone else. Each member is individually elected to represent their state or district. For better or for worse, they get to decide what is best for their constituents and their constituents get to respond in the next election.

Joe Manchin was the major impediment in 2021-2023. He mostly supported the party’s agenda but had some sticking points. He had to be onboard with whatever passed given the razor thin majority.

I saw all these screeds about how he should be kicked out of the party, but the objective reality is there is very little you can do to pressure a centrist Democrat from a state that voted for Trump by 50 points. The only option available was to placate him and come to a compromise (which he ultimately agreed to for major climate change reduction investment).

The reality is that the Democratic Party is not monolithic, it has some centrists who don’t support some of the more ambitious goals of the party. If you want bigger action, you have to have a bigger majority. Slim majorities give small wings of the party outsized influence on policy.

The thing you have to keep reminding yourself is just how disconnected from politics the average voter is. We’ve seen 2 full months of every day bringing some new chaos, but for most Americans, the only major things that have happened are:

1. Elon Musk is firing lots of government workers
2. Trump is enacting tariffs

Everything else is just noise to them and they filter it out. Until things really start to affect them directly, apathetic Trump voters who thought voting for him would magically turn the economy back to what it was before Covid are going to assume things are improving (because they already were before the election, they were just in a sour mood and refused to admit it).

The short answer is basically Trump supporters are overrepresented in the watchers. Biden also got numbers in the high 60s.

Democrats don’t usually force shutdowns because the people most likely to suffer under a shutdown are federal, state, and local government employees, people who work in academia, and people in major metropolitan areas, all of whom make up a significant portion of the Democratic base. It doesn’t make sense to force a shutdown if your own voters are just going to blame you for the disruption it causes to their lives anyway.

Now there’s far more to lose, and Trump is going to get the blame for it. Shutdown for a few weeks to protect a few hundred thousand federal workers for at least a year is a pretty safe gamble when you’re not likely to get blamed for the short-term disruption anyway.

It’s a definition from a well-respected global standards organization. Can you name a source that would provide a more authoritative definition than the ISO?

There’s no universally correct definition for what the ≈ symbol means, and if you write a paper or a proof or whatever, you’re welcome to define it to mean whatever you want in that context, but citing a professional standards organization seems like a pretty reliable way to find a commonly-accepted and understood definition.

Sure! See ISO-80000-2

Here’s a link: https://cdn.standards.iteh.ai/samples/64973/329519100abd447ea0d49747258d1094/ISO-80000-2-2019.pdf

“Approximately equal” is just a superset of “equal” that also includes values “acceptably close” (using whatever definition you set for acceptable).

Unless you say something like:

a ≈ b ∧ a ≠ b

which implies a is close to b but not exactly equal to b, it’s safe to presume that a ≈ b includes the possibility that a = b.

I was tilling my garden a month or two ago and got to one end, turned around, and casually strolling right through the middle of the plot, literally 10 feet in front of me and a very loud tiller, was a young buck. Completely unafraid of me or the tiller.

On another day, I was using a chainsaw to cut down some buckthorn and that same buck was within 5 feet of me eating the leaves on the trees I just cut down. Again completely unafraid.

I put up a small net around the perimeter a few days before I put my plants in and they knocked it over, tore the net, and bent the poles. There wasn’t even anything in the garden! And to top it all off, there were several fresh piles of poop.

So I put in 8 ft. T poles every 4 feet around the perimeter, doubled up the net, secured it at the top and the bottom, and they haven’t gotten in yet (although I watched one of them biting at it). Unfortunately the neighbors are feeding these deer, so they have almost no fear of people.

The role of a district court judge is to do two things:

1. Apply existing precedent to individual cases to the greatest extent possible.
2. Set new precedent only when absolutely necessary because the facts of the case don’t align well to existing precedent.

Cannon has basically decided to do the exact opposite of these two rules by pretending that the facts of this case are so incredibly unprecedented that she has to throw out the rulebook and set new precedents on everything.

Literally the only unusual thing about this case is that the defendant, a private citizen who currently gets free government security protection for the rest of his life, used to be a president. That’s it. Everything else about this case is straightforward obstruction of justice and willful retention of national security information.